Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda


#1

I love a lively discussion. I love lively, passionate discourse at social gatherings and on online forums. I’m particularly gratified that, in the latter case, no one can throw their drink in my face in the heat of the moment. This is my first thread on CAF, so please don’t mind if I just dive right into it:

There is a disturbing trend among Catholics in the west – cleric and layman alike – toward granting certain tenets of the homosexual agenda, even while combatting it… even before the dialogue has commenced.

For one thing, note how lamentably widespread (even among Catholics) use of the term “gay” is… And I don’t mean in the all-purpose adolescent pejorative sense that the homosexual agenda is currently campaigning against. I mean in the sense of phrases like “gay marriage” or “gay rights,” or simply referring to homosexuals en masse as “gays.” This term, which started as a vague if overly charitable euphemism for homosexuality when discussing the subject in polite company, has since been adopted by the homosexual agenda as the standard nomenclature for a lifestyle that is anything but “gay,” in the original sense of the word. And yet I hear Catholics using this term all the time – even good Catholics who oppose homosexuality – largely because the popular culture saturates us with it.

Worse, there’s a creeping tendency for use of the especially loaded acronym “LGBT” (or”LGBTQ”). This term, which is of particularly recent vintage, and has become a corporate logo of sorts for the homosexual agenda, is being used with increasing frequency in Catholic publications, online forums, and academic discourse.

No wonder then, that we even find Catholics making the most fatal concession of all in this most crucial moral debate – tacit (and sometimes explicit) affirmation of the existence of the completely invented “evil” of “homophobia.” This totally fictitious, fallacious, fraudulent term, which first saw print in the pages of the pornographic publication ”Screw Magazine,” is the homosexual agenda’s most potent weapon; an argument-stopping pejorative used to damn well-reasoned intellectual and moral opposition to homosexuality (and even the very natural and wholesome revulsion inherent in most people at the idea of homosexual acts) out of the discussion altogether. It is a Scarlet Letter that marks the opposition as irrationally fearful bigots who do not deserve even to be heard.

He who controls the language controls the debate. Lexical concessions to the homosexualist movement inevitably trickle down into praxis. And in much Catholic pastoral language here in the west, the subject of homosexuality as sin is gingerly danced around for fear of causing insult. Concessions are made left and right to the feelings of homosexuals. Good, holy priests like Father Marcel Guarnizo are punished for rightly withholding the Blessed Sacrament from bold, anti-Catholic homosexual activists and agitators seeking to use God’s most sacred Gift as a cudgel against the Church in furtherance of their wicked agenda. And we are repeatedly admonished to be mindful of the terrible burden that the homosexual must bear in his or her call to live chastely as a faithful Catholic.

Now I don’t deny for a minute that a person afflicted with sexual attraction to members of his or her own sex has a cross to bear in living his or her life chastely… I’m simply saying that their cross is not one whit greater or heavier than that of any other faithful Catholic struggling against the evils of this sexually sick age. Homosexuals certainly do have a heavy cross to bear… And so do people addicted to pornography. So do chronic masturbators. So do pedophiles. So do bestialists. So do the many countless other poor souls afflicted with intrinsically disordered inclinations to grave sexual sins. The only difference between these groups and homosexuals? A good PR department. Bestialists, pedophiles, and chronic masturbators don’t have TV shows, films and popular songs and books painting a sympathetic portrait of them as an oft-persecuted, frequently martyred minority on the canvas of the western zeitgeist by a very powerful, very well-funded, very sinister agenda… Not yet, anyway.

And that gets to the heart of the matter – the most fundamentally wrong concession to make in this debate is to that concept which is the homosexual agenda’s raison d’etre: The notion that a person’s sexual proclivities and inclinations are a defining, ontologically rooted aspect of the person’s very self. This is a most pernicious error that seeks to relativize heterosexuality as just one “sexual orientation,” just one color in the “rainbow” of sexual “orientations,” no better or worse than homosexuality. This is a demonically widespread presumption held by many people consciously or unconsciously. It obfuscates the simple, once universally understood truth that the ONLY sexual “orientation” is procreative heterosexuality. “God created man… He created them male and female; and He blessed them.” That is the only ontological truth with respect to sexuality. All else is sexual DISorientation. And yet when we use terms like “gay” with regard to homosexuals, when we speak of “the LGBT community,” and single homosexuals out as a group deserving of particular compassion over and above sufferers of other intrinsically disordered inclinations, we are tacitly endorsing this very central tenet of the homosexual agenda.

(contined below)


#2

(Contined)

We Catholics should be more keenly aware than anyone that treating a gravely sinful lifestyle with kid gloves and walking on eggshells when broaching the subject does no good service whatsoever to the sinner whose soul is in mortal, eternal jeopardy. If your friend, your brother, your child were asleep at the wheel of a speeding car would you wring your hands and furrow your brow, trying to come up with the right words to alert him to the danger without hurting his feelings by casting dispersions on his driving ability? Or would you immediately rouse him from his stupor, not stopping short of a slap to the face if it means saving his life (and the lives of everyone else in the car)? I’m reminded of the words of the late Carroll O’Connor, who went to his grave a broken hearted man over the drug-related death of his son Hugh. He looked back with immense regret at his lack of action, saying “I should have spied on him. I should've taken away all his civil rights, spied on him, opened his mail, listened to telephone calls, everything.” Are those the words of a father who hated his son? No, those are words spoken from nothing but deepest love. Isn’t it much more “hateful” to say nothing; to callously allow a soul to go down the road to perdition for fear of causing offense? We should be condemning sexual sins – all sexual sins – in the clearest, most unambiguous language possible, giving no heed to offending sensibilities that are of this world (and its prince) in so doing.

In closing, I would like to refer anyone reading this admittedly overlong post (brevity and conciseness are not among my gifts, I confess regrettably) to the wonderful talk on “False Compassion” given by Venerable Fulton J Sheen. The whole thing is available on youtube and I highly recommend watching it in its entirety. But part 2 of the talk has special relevance here. Watch this great holy man addressing this very subject without mincing his words, and keep in mind that this was how our priests and bishops regularly discussed the subject at hand, and in living memory of very many Catholics alive today: youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7pKqfhWeo


#3

The word homophobia does cause fury in me especially when Christians use it. It is a chance to ‘offer up’ my anger and pray. Even while the homosexual lobby continue to persecute (yes I used that word - and I mean it) all who disagree with them


#4

I'm Jewish and I think that the above posts are spot-on.


#5

Wow, that was quite a post! Anyway, you had me at the title. Are Catholics ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda? Absolutely, yes. Loving homosexuals as fellow children of God is one thing. Condoning the homosexual act, or the unholy sacrilege called same sex “marriage” is quite another thing. We as Catholics need to move beyond whatever lingering shame we might feel over the scandals in the church (it was not our fault!) embrace the new appointments of our orthodox Pope Benedict XVI- long may he reign- and realize that we do have the moral imperative. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural and no faithful Catholic should support the homosexual agenda in any way whatsoever.


#6

To be Catholic and an enabler to homosexism are hardly compatible.


#7

I agree with most of what is said above fully, except this- homophobia is an invention. It is not an invention, but a cold fact- and an offense against the Catechism’s statement that homosexual persons should be treated with dignity and respect. I’m not talking about accepting the behavior- or even gay marriage- since they’re a non-negotiable issue; I’m talking about homosexuals being disowned, beaten to death, barred from jobs, and generally demeaned because of their actions- or even non-actions in the case of non-practicing homosexuals. And while homosexuality is a moral disorder, I still consider it utterly ridiculous to put them on the same level as pedophiles (who are child abusers, and do lasting harm outside of the mere act), and bestialists (since animals are NOT humans, which even prevents the idea of using an emotional connection as an excuse, as animals do not have human emotions). Homosexual acts generally occur in our world from a combination of lust and romantic attraction- the latter being the one lacking in the previous two disorders, one being created from pure lust and the other because of that and the need to have power over someone- and the reason the behavior is wrong is simply because it’s sex outside of marriage, since we know two men or two women cannot get married.


#8

Homophobia is generally a misused term though let’s face it. It is a stick to beat people with.


#9

I agree with this. Homophobia is a real thing, it’s just that the gay agenda uses it in a wildly inappropriate manner, applying it to any and all who reject their disordered desires. I agree with previous posters that, when misused, the term boils my blood and drives me to the extreme desires of wrath.

Beyond that, excellent post!


#10

Yeah, I don’t get why this is even occurring. :frowning:


#11

I agree that hatred of homosexuals is real, but that the charge of hatred. as carried in the handy term, "homophobia, is over-used. I suspect that use of the term is largely meant to rally people who are already supporters, much as the term "socialist" is often bandied about by some US conservatives.

However, I am not sure about the objections to the word "gay" or the abbreviation LGBT. What is the harm in using those terms?


#12

It lends credence and legitimacy to unnatural practices, at least with the LGBT abbreviation. As for the term gay, not sure.


#13

St. Francis of Assisi Church in my city has a LGBT Ministry, among it’s incredible array of ministries to help the poor, afflicted and alienated. Bravo for them! Love and compassion are key to the Christian life. Not matter what sin a human being has, we are to love the sinner, and be supportive so that the sinner will be able to examine their own conscience and strive for peace within themselves and their Creator.

We should not say, as Jesus said, 'let me take that splinter out of your eye, when there is a tree in our own eye. We are all sinners, and have fallen short of God’s righteousness.:gopray::signofcross:


#14

[quote="BTNYC, post:1, topic:301330"]

He who controls the language controls the debate. Lexical concessions to the homosexualist movement inevitably trickle down into praxis. And in much Catholic pastoral language here in the west, the subject of homosexuality as sin is gingerly danced around for fear of causing insult. Concessions are made left and right to the feelings of homosexuals.

[/quote]

Very correct. The problem is few will understand and accept your position. As you point out many will immediately claim that not using these terms is offenseive to people and therefore they will not hear your message. Like immature children plugging their ears apparently adults cannot stand to discuss important topics unless you agree to their obfuscating terms.

All the terms you listed, like the false term "pro choice", are political terms. The exist to mislead and cloud the discussion.


#15

Homophobia exists. Teenagers getting killed for being open about their homosexuality is obviously unacceptable, and is not an “invented evil,” it is simply fact. We have the police reports, newspaper articles, and court cases to prove it.

I’m simply saying that their cross is not one whit greater or heavier than that of any other faithful Catholic struggling against the evils of this sexually sick age…And so do people addicted to pornography. So do chronic masturbators. So do pedophiles. So do bestialists.

That is absurd and extremely offensive. It is certainly not a charitable mindset to any of the groups mentioned. Pornography and masturbation addicts can conceivably overcome that addiction and get married. A homosexual may never have that possibility, and so the situations are incomparable. Furthermore, there is agency involved in pornography and masturbation that there is not is pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality.


#16

What is homophobia?

That is absurd and extremely offensive. It is certainly not a charitable mindset to any of the groups mentioned. Pornography and masturbation addicts can conceivably overcome that addiction and get married. A homosexual may never have that possibility, and so the situations are incomparable. Furthermore, there is agency involved in pornography and masturbation that there is not is pedophilia, bestiality, and homosexuality.

It is not absurd nor offensive. What is absurd is to make some comparison between the possibility of marriage and non marriage as in some way germane to the topics here.


#17

Homophobia: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”

I am told that murder is generally considered extreme.

It is not absurd nor offensive. What is absurd is to make some comparison between the possibility of marriage and non marriage as in some way germane to the topics here.

It is absolutely relevant when one is speaking about “crosses to bear” and one mentions a Biblical reference to marriage as the most natural vocation of humans. Nice try, though.


#18

They all fall under the lines of sexual sin. Yes, a homosexual’s trials will likely last longer than someone addicted to pornography or masturbation; and yes the latter two are likely easier to overcome, but in the end they are all crosses that need born. Someone should not be exempted simply because their cross is heavier, nor should they be treated any differently (either positively or negatively) as a result of the nature of their cross.


#19

Then people are by nature homophobic. Is there a reason that children tend to be naturally repelled to the idea of homosexuality?

I say that we tend to silence our natural consciences and rationalize away our natural disgust for the sake of tolerance. Killing is bad, but disgust is irrational and seems to be our conscience’s way of informing us that this is disordered.


#20

[quote="Sailor_Kenshin, post:10, topic:301330"]

our fault!) embrace the new appointments of our orthodox Pope Benedict XVI- long may he reign- and realize that we do have the moral imperative. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural and no faithful Catholic should support the homosexual agenda in any way whatsoever.

Yeah, I don't get why this is even occurring. :(
[/quote]

I can only speak from my very limited view but I think that a significant part of the problem, at least in the US, stems from trying to balance personal, religious beliefs with what might be right and proper in the secular state.

If I may offer a scripture reference here...St Paul, in 1 Cor 5 says this:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."
Of course at the time Paul wrote this, there as no "secular" state, no "democracy" and Christianity was not a recognized religion. Things are quite a bit different today.

The homosexual community, in general, is not seeking rights inside of the Church. They are seeking legal rights, not previously recognized, in the state. So the question that comes up in the mind of the person of faith is this...Do I have the right to oppose the granting of "legal rights and protections" to a group that is essentially outside of the Church? After all, it's one thing to say to another Christian, homosexuality is a sin and you may not engage in homosexual activity. It's another thing entirely (according to Paul) to impose the matter on those outside of the Church.

That said...As citizens of this country, we have the right and obligation to vote our beliefs and our conscience. The reason for this is simple. Voting is how the government knows the mind of the people. If we do not vote what we believe, then we do no service to our country or our neighbor. For a faithful Catholic that means voting against measures such as same sex marriage.

Please do not take the above as in any way endorsing the homosexual agenda. I am simply presenting a reason why some can feel conflicted about how to handle the differing and sometimes conflicting roles of being the citizen of two states..the U.S. and Heaven.

Peace
James


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.